Christianity and the Problem of Human Violence: Part 28: Animals as
Scapegoats, part 1

A key tenet of Girardian thought is that the scapegoating mechanism is
hidden. Those who engage in sacred violence believe they are acting
according to divine will and would not characterize their activities as
violent or destructive. Historically, humans have often been victims of the
scapegoating mechanism for several reasons. As we recall, a “sacrificial
crisis” occurs when there is growing hostility within a community, which is
an inevitable consequence of mimetic desire and which can be aggravated
greatly by a natural disaster such as a drought, epidemic, or flood.

Just as desire is mimetic, so too is the accusatory gesture mimetic.
Someone (typically a peripheral member of the community who has a physical
disability or a mental disorder) is accused of demonic possession and
casting evil spells. Once this person has been banished or killed, peace is
restored. In the minds of those who scapegoat, this validates the victim’s
guilt. As we saw, the ancient Hebrews often substituted animals for humans,
which appears to have been a necessary step towards ceasing sacrificial
violence altogether.

Most people believe that in this modern, “enlightened” era we have
abandoned sacrificial violence. While we often go to lengths to avoid
scapegoating people and making them victims of sacred violence, I maintain
that sacred violence persists, with animals as frequent contemporary
substitutes. One gets a sense of the sacred nature of activities that
involve hurting and/or killing animals from the intense emotions expressed
by those who defend these activities. Just as people tend to be most
defensive of religious tenets that are difficult to justify on rational
grounds, animal advocates frequently arouse anger that seems
out-of-proportion to the nonviolent, compassionate message animal advocates
encourage.

The motivations that underlie animal exploitation are complex. Certainly,
self-interest is one factor—people want the taste of animal flesh, the feel
of animal skins, the (supposed) benefits of animal experimentation, etc.
However, I think factors related to scapegoating help explain why people
often despise animal advocates, because animal protectionists often focus on
the animals’ innocence.

Humankind’s connection with the natural world in general and animals in
particular reminds people of their mortality. To many people, animals seem
to lead meaningless lives characterized by struggle followed by anonymous
death. (I think animals do have rich and meaningful lives, but this is not
always evident to the casual observer.) When people kill animals, it gives
people a sense of superiority, a sense that they are fundamentally different
from the animals. I think that the act of eating animals generates a similar
symbolic message—if people can consume animals’ very bodies, then people
don’t feel like they are “one of them.” This might also help explain the
horror engendered by stories of people being eaten by animals—it reminds
people that they are 1) vulnerable to death and 2) made of flesh. Along
these lines, many cultures deal with corpses in ways that avoid people
seeing flesh decompose.

Next week, we will examine why animal experimenters talk about
“sacrificing” animals, and we will explore how animals are scapegoats in the
universal quest for self-esteem.

Fair Use Notice: This document, and others on our web site, may contain copyrighted
material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owners.
We believe that this not-for-profit, educational use on the Web constitutes a fair use
of the copyrighted material (as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law).
If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use,
you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.